Commento su Levitico 9:25

ויהי ביום השמיני AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY of the installation of the priests into their sacred office (cf. Sifra); this was the New Moon of Nisan on which the Tabernacle was finally erected (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:29) and it (that day) received ten crowns (it was distinguished in ten different ways) which are enumerated in Seder Olam 7 (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 1; Shabbat 87b).

ויהי ביום השמיני, it was on the eighth day; We need to analyse why the Torah had to introduce this chapter with the word ויהי. We are told in Megillah 10 that Rabbi Levi claimed there was an ancient tradition that every time the word ויהי appears it has a connotation of something painful having occurred. This view was challenged by the questioner pointing to the word ויהי in our portion which introduces the joyous event of Aaron performing the rites in the Tabernacle; furthermore, we have a Baraitha according to which this day was as joyous an occasion as the day on which G'd created Heaven and Earth, a day which is also introduced in the Torah by the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, "it was evening it was morning, etc." The Talmud answers that the saddening event in our portion was the death of Nadav and Avihu. The questioner in the Talmud continues, wanting to know why the word ויהי is used in Kings I 6,1 when the building of Solomon's Temple is reported. He also points to Genesis 29,10 where Jacob's encounter with his bride-to-be Rachel is introduced by the word ויהי. The questioner mentions a further occurrence of that word every time G'd completed part of the creation of the universe and the Torah describes the completion of that portion with the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. What were the negative elements on those occasions which prompted the Bible to draw our attention to them by means of the word ויהי? Rav Ashi answers that the word ויהי by itself may have either positive or negative connotations. When the word ויהי is followed by the word בימי, "during the lifetime of, etc." it invariably has a negative connotation. The Talmud added that there are five occasions when the expression ויהי בימי occurs in the Bible. Thus far the discussion in Megillah 10.

ויהי ביום השמיני; the eighth day after the commencement of the consecration of the priests, the eighth day after the Tabernacle had been erected and Aaron and his sons had been consecrated to commence performing the service therein.

ויהי ביום השמיני ...ויאמר אל אהרן וגו', “It was on the eighth day…he said to Aaron, etc.” Up until now the Torah did not spell out which of the sacrifices mentioned had been commanded to Moses in which order, and the Torah contented itself with writing: זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' תעשו, “this is the matter which the Lord has commanded you are to do,” and the sacrifices mentioned here in our portion had not been recorded as being specifically commanded to Moses to command to Aaron and the Children of Israel respectively. Now- as opposed to the seven days previously when Moses had been offering the מילואים inaugural sacrifices,- Aaron and his sons, and subsequently he and his sons on behalf of the people at large, will perform these procedures. The sacrifices mentioned here served as consecration sacrifices for the people. The מנחה gift offering that Aaron was to bring with the sin offering and the burnt offering was the חביטים offering he was required to offer every single day of the year. The Midrash suggests that the calf that Aaron was instructed to offer here served as a sin offering for his share in the sin of the golden calf. Nachmanides writes that Aaron’s sacrifice here was no different in nature from his personal sin offering on the Day of Atonement, and the sin offering on behalf of the people also corresponded to the sin offering he brought on behalf of the people on the Day of Atonement, when he offered a he-goat as their sin offering. It would appear therefore that seeing that the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering corresponded to his sin offering on the Day of Atonement, he burned it, just as he burned the one on the Day of Atonement. This was so, in spite of the fact, that this sin offering was offered on the large altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and part of such sin-offerings are usually consumed by the male priests within the holy precincts. (Zevachim, chapter 5) Though we do not hear that Moses had instructed him to burn this sin offering, it is possible that he had received such instructions and the Torah did not bother to inform us of this. There was no need for the Torah to mention the directive, as clearly, Aaron would not proceed on his own initiative to offer an offering he had not been told to offer. There is a further statement in the Midrash to the effect that the שור, bull, was intended as atonement for the Israelites’ share in the sin of the golden calf, and that the reason that here a male goat was added was to atone for the brothers having dipped Joseph’s coloured tunic in the blood of a male goat at the time, a sin which had not yet been atoned for. [According to an ancient version of the Tanchuma, this was to reassure the Israelites that the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven. Ed.]

Eighth [day] of the installation. Since it is written at the end of Parshas Tzav: “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night... Aharon and his sons fulfilled...” after which it is written: “And it was on the eighth day,” it surely refers to what came precedes it, those seven days, for we expound the juxtaposition [of the verses]. Furthermore, we can say that Scripture comes to elucidate and not to be unclear. Why, then, does it not specify which day it was? Rather, it must have been the eighth day (Rosh Chodesh Nison) of the installation, and it does not need to specify since it was juxtaposed to that verse.

And on the Eighth day, Moses summoned. The numerical value of this phrase is equal to that of It was on the day of Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Moshe said, "Because I resisted for seven days at the [Burning] Bush, I merited to serve as a Kohen for only seven [days]

ויהי ביום השמיני קרא משה לאהרן ובניו, “it was on the eighth day when Moses called Aaron and his sons, etc.”; we find the expression קרא being used for inviting someone to eat in order to satiate himself, as in Ezekiel 36,29: וקראתי אל הדגן והרביתי אותו, “I will summon (call) the grain and make it abundant;” we find the same expression used in connection with famine, as in Kings II 8,1: כי קרא ה' לרעב, “for the Lord has decreed a seven year famine on the land.” We find that expression when someone is chosen for greatness, as when G–d chose Moses and Aaron for such positions, G–d having told Moses to call his brother Aaron in Exodus 4,14 and his telling him that he rejoices over his appointment. We now find it here where Moses is called upon to make the appointment of Aaron and his sons as priests public knowledge.

ויהי ביום השמיני קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו, “It came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called upon Aaron and his sons;” he intended to consecrate them as priests;

ולזקני ישראל AND TO THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, to inform them that it was by the express command of God that Aaron was entering the Sanctuary and ministering in the high-priesthood, so that they might not say: “He is entering on his own authority, unbidden.”

That very day. Rashi is answering the question: The verse comes to tell us when this happened, when it says: “And it was on the eighth day,” but we still do not know in which month the eighth day of installation was, or the date of the month. Because of this Rashi explains that it was Rosh Chodesh Nison. And Rashi means to say: The verse does not need to tell us that, for surely it was Rosh Chodesh Nison, because the Mishkon was erected on that very day, as it clearly says in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 40:2). Since we have found that there was holiness on Rosh Chodesh Nison, then this [the eighth day of installation] was surely on Rosh Chodesh Nison as well, for we should assume that holiness occurs on a holy day. The verse relied on [this rationale], and it therefore did not specify the date. Additionally, Rashi is answering the question: How do we know the rationale to assume holiness occurs on a holy day — that [we should say] the verse relies on this logic? Therefore Rashi explains: And it took ten crowns which are taught in Seder Olom, i.e., we say in Seder Olam that this day took ten crowns. Why, though, did Hashem let it have all these virtues more than the other months? Perforce, it must be: This day was sanctified beforehand for the sake of the erection of the Mishkon, and we assume holiness occurs on a holy day.

Why did the questioner address his question to what is written in our verse, when the real question is what is written in Genesis over and over again, i.e. ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, which enabled the query about our verse not having a negative connotation? I must assume that the questioner obviously had all these verses in mind when he challenged Rabbi Levi's tradition. The only reason he introduced our verse was to make his question even more powerful by suggesting there are many such verses which clearly point to a joyous event. Alternatively, the questioner wanted to draw the opposite conclusion of the one Rabbi Levi reported as originating with the men of the great assembly. He wanted to argue that the word ויהי always introduces something joyous. He reasoned that just as the Tanna had compared our verse to the verse in Genesis in which the expression occurs for the first time and which certainly spoke about a positive event, so every time that expression occurs it denotes something positive, a joyous occasion. Using the verse ויהי ערב ויהי בקר in Genesis makes it much harder to refute the questioner's argument seeing no specific event is mentioned in that verse the nature of which could be disputed. Rabbi Levi's answer that our verse describes a day on which Nadav and Avihu died is somewhat astounding. This answer is applicable to our verse, but certainly not to the verses commencing with ויהי ערב in Genesis? It would not do to say that Rabbi Levi felt that the words ויהי ערב in Genesis also referred to something negative [after all they were preceded by G'd saying that He approved of how His instructions had been carried out, וירא אלוקים כי טוב, Ed.]. More to the point, why did not Rabbi Levi himself address those verses which begin with the word ויהי and which clearly speak of joyful events? He himself should have known the answer given by Rav Ashi!

We also find this expression being used when the elders were being appointed to their respective positions, in order that this would become public knowledge.

ולזקני ישראל, “and the elders of Israel;” so that they could stand and watch them present their sacrificial offerings.” (B’chor shor)

Took ten. For this reason it uses the indicative ה, the special eighth day, because of the ten crowns that it took. And they are: 1) The first day of the act of Creation, 2) first of the [Roshei] Chodashim, 3) first day of the princes’ [sacrifices], 4) first day of kehunah, 5) first day of Temple service, 6) of the fire descending, 7) of eating the sacrifices, 8) for the prohibition of individual altars, 9) for the presence of the Shechinoh in Yisroel, 10) for blessing the people of Yisroel.

I believe that Rabbi Levi did not mean to teach us anything other than Rav Ashi. The Talmud alludes to this by not introducing Rav Ashi's words with the introductory: אלא אמר רב אשי, "however, Rav Ashi said, etc." Had the Talmud used that formula we would have been justified in understanding him as refuting Rabbi Levi. What Rav Ashi said is compatible with what Rabbi Levi said, i.e. that the word ויהי contains a negative connotation. There are indeed many verses when that word alludes to something saddening. He only answered the person who had challenged Rabbi Levi believing that Rabbi Levi had meant that the word ויהי without the addition בימי is employed by the Bible exclusively in a negative context. This is why the questioner chose our verse out of the many other verses he could have chosen. He wanted to show that the events described in our verse were exceptionally joyous. After all, what conceptual difference is there between ויהי ביום, and ויהי בימי? The answer given was that the reason the Torah wrote ויהי ביום instead of a formula which would have reflected the purely joyous nature of the occasion was that the two sons of Aaron died on that very day. [With all due respect to the author, if he had introduced the subject as it is introduced in the Talmud namely: ויהי בימי אחשורוש, followed by Rabbi Levi's statement that every place where the expression ויהי occurs it carries a negative connotation, his remarks would have been easier to follow. No doubt the author had his reasons and that is why I did not see fit to amend his quotation above. Ed.]

Entered and served. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he call the elders of Israel? We cannot say he wanted to speak to them so that they would tell the people of Israel to bring their offerings, because it is written afterwards (v. 3): “To Bnei Yisroel you [Aharon] shall speak, saying...” To the elders, however, Moshe said nothing! Therefore, Rashi explains: “To announce to them...” [You might ask:] Above, in the previous parshah, it is written (8:5): “Moshe said to the congregation, ‘This is the edict that Adonoy commanded,’” upon which Rashi explains: “You should not say that [it is] for my honor and for my brother’s honor [that] I do this.” If so, why does he need to announce to them a second time that it was by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve? The answer is: Here, Moshe came to let them know that it is by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve even as a kohein godol, which is a different service than the service of an ordinary kohein (Re’m). [Alternatively,] the answer is: There, it refers to what they did during the seven days of installation, but here it refers to what he did on the eighth day. This is why Moshe mentioned above: “[You should not say that it is] for my honor” and here he speaks on Aharon’s behalf alone (Nachalas Yaakov).

Subsequently the question about the meaning of the word ויהי when it is not followed by either the word בימי or ביום is dealt with. In that context Rav Ashi said that the word itself is neutral and that its meaning is modified by what follows, such as the word בימי, for instance. The questioner who quoted a number of verses in which the word ויהי is not modified by either the word ביום or בימי, refers to very joyous events and gave Rav Ashi cause to say that this need not lead us to the assumption that only the words בימי or ביום modify the meaning of the word ויהי to signal that something sad is being reported. There are other occasions when the word by itself may also introduce something sad. When we have the words בימי, however, what follows invariably contains a negative element. Incidentally, the negative element in Exodus 19,16 where the Torah states ויהי ביום השלישי and introduces the happy event of מתן תורה, was that all the Israelites died for a brief space of time when they found themselves unable to absorb G'd's revelation. According to Shabbat 88, G'd brought them back to life immediately.

Perhaps another element of pain asscociated with the words ויהי ביום השמיני is that Moses realised on that day that it had become Aaron and his sons who were the "heirs" of his own spiritual stature and not his own sons. The Talmud (Menachot 109) tells about the High Priest Shimon Ha-tzaddik who had appointed one of his sons Chonov to be his successor, something which aroused the jealousy of Chonov's brother Shimi. The results were terrible. At any rate, we see from there that aspiring to something noble may cause the finest person anguish if one's desire goes unfulfilled. At the time G'd had repeatedly urged Moses to accept the role of leader of the Jewish people and Moses had repeatedly declined, G'd had become angry, deciding to deny Moses the position of High Priest [a hereditary position provided the son was suitable. Ed.] Up until now Moses had not felt saddened by not having been accorded the rank of High Priest. Now when he saw that Aaron had been given this honour, he was saddened by having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest. Although we know that Moses was the most humble and fair person his heart was not made of stone, and he suffered some emotional distress about this, especially as the position denied him involved being the instrument of atonement for his people, etc. Perhaps the Torah alluded to Moses' feelings in the matter in Numbers 7,1 where we read ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, "it was on the day Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle;" this was the same date as the day which is described in our portion as "the eighth day," i. e. the first of Nissan. Our suggestion would account for the fact that the Torah introduced both paragraphs with the words ויהי ביום, seeing that in our verse the sad event was the death of Nadav and Avihu whereas in Numbers the sadness the Torah alluded to was Moses' distress at having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest.

ביום …קרא משה לאהרון, on that day Moses called Aaron, etc. Any psychologist realises that a person who is forced to give up a position of honour originally intended for himself to someone else, even if that someone is his own brother, may be expected to display his distress in three ways. 1) He is unlikely to carry out the command with dispatch; 2) he is unlikely to perform the command in the most effective manner; 3) he will try to avoid fulfilling this command publicly. The Torah here describes that Moses mastered all the inhibitions an ordinary individual would have displayed in carrying out this command. 1) He carried out the command on the first day it was possible, i.e. the eighth day. 2) He carried out the command with all its attendant subsidiary commands, i.e. he appointed Aaron's sons at the same time although there was no immediate need for Aaron's sons to substitute for their father and this was perhaps the hardest part for him to fulfil. 3) He called in the elders of the people and performed the command in public. Moses displayed an example of suppressing his personal feelings in order to fulfil G'd's command.

קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו, “Moses called out to Aaron and his sons.” Our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 3) comment that the word קרא ל.. means that Moses called upon Aaron to wear the mantle of the position of High Priest. When told that he was to be the High Priest, Aaron said to his brother: “seeing you have worked tirelessly to make the Tabernacle a reality, it does not seem fair that I should be the High Priest.” Moses answered him that although Aaron had been appointed to this position by G’d, He, Moses, was as happy for him as if he himself had been appointed to that position. He added that just as Aaron had rejoiced at the time when Moses was appointed the leader of the people, although he was the older of the two, now it was his turn to rejoice in Aaron’s promotion. The occasion when Aaron had rejoiced at Moses’ appointment is recorded in Exodus 4,14 where G’d told Moses that his brother Aaron would rejoice in his appointment. One of the reasons Moses had not wanted to accept the position was that he was afraid that Aaron who had been the people’s spokesman up until then would be offended. This is what Moses had meant when he said to G’d: “appoint (send) the one whom You are in the habit of sending on such missions” (Exodus 4,13).
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said that the heart which had been able to sincerely rejoice at the promotion of his younger brother was the most suitable one to wear the urim vetumim, as is written “he shall carry the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart” (Exodus 25,30). This is why during the seven days that Moses performed the sprinkling of the blood on the Altar, offering incense, etc., G’d said to him: “Moses in case you think that you are going to be the High Priest, call in Aaron and appoint him to the position.” Why did Moses also have to call in the elders of the people? G’d told him to appoint Aaron in their presence in order that later on no one could claim that Aaron had appointed himself to this position.

קח לך עגל TAKE THEE A CALF — This animal was selected as a sin offering to announce to him that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted him atonement by means of this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 4)

AND HE [Moses] SAID TO AARON: TAKE THEE A BULL-CALF FOR A SIN-OFFERING. Moses, our teacher, had been commanded about these offerings, as he said at the end [of the section], This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,¹Verse 6. although this [command for these specific offerings] is not expressly mentioned. Similarly, And Moses said: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it be kept throughout your generations,²Exodus 16:32. [where the verse indicates that Moses received a Divine command although it is not specifically mentioned]. Also, I am the G-d of Beth-el,³Genesis 31:13. when Jacob related [to his wives all that G-d’s angel had told him in the dream], even though it is not mentioned in Scripture that he was so told. I have already shown to you⁴Exodus 11:1. Also ibid., 12:21. many such examples in the sections on the commandments regarding the Passover.

קח לך עגל, "take for yourself a bull-calf, etc." Yuma 4 questions the need for the words "for yourself," seeing that the Torah goes on to say that the he-goat in verse 3 was for the people; obviously then the bull-calf was for Aaron personally. The Talmud answers that the words קח לך meant that Aaron was to pay for that bull-calf out of his personal funds.

For the deed of the [Golden] Calf. You might ask: [There is a rule that] the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:22)! The answer is: That [rule] applies specifically regarding to the service performed inside [the Holy of Holies], such as the garments of kehunah û when the kohein godol entered the most innermost, he would not wear any garments that had gold, because “the prosecution, etc.” There was no concern about this [rule], though, regarding the service performed outside. [Alternatively:] We need not ask: Since Aharon sinned with regard to the [Golden] Calf, this raises the concern that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas. [The answer is:] It is different there, because the Red Heifer was to atone for all of Israel. If Aharon was making the atonement [instead of Elozor his son, see Rashi (ibid.)], there would be reason to be concerned that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, but here, where he was atoning only for himself, this rule is not applicable. Re’m writes: However, that which Rashi says: “to let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf,” I do not know how it lets us know this. If it was because the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of these offerings, which demonstrates that Hashem atoned by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf — then even without this calf we would also know that since the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of Aharon’s bringing the offerings he has already achieved atonement for his sin... It appears to me that Rashi derives this from what it is written: “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” Why does it say, “for yourself”? It should only say, “Take a young calf...” as it is written regarding the people (v. 3): “Take a he-goat...” Rather, perforce, since it is written, “Take, for yourself, a young calf for a sin-offering,” it means that the taking should be ‘for you,’ i.e., for your good: “To let us know [that Hashem forgave]...” Alternatively: Rashi’s proof is from that which Aharon was commanded about this calf for a sin-offering. Normally, the sin-offering of an anointed kohein is a bullock, as it says in Parshas Vayikro (4:3). Why, then, did He command a calf for the sin-offering here? Rather, [it must be:] “To let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf which he made.” [This is from] Toras Kohanim. [The Sages made this drashah] because otherwise, why did Aharon take a calf whereas Israel [took] a he-goat? Rather, Aharon brought a calf because he sinned with a calf, and Israel [brought] a he-goat because they sinned with a he-goat — in that they dipped the tunic in blood [after selling Yosef]. You might ask: If so, this poses a difficulty with regard to the burnt-offering as well: Why was Israel’s burnt-offering a calf, and Aharon’s burnt-offering a ram? The answer is: Since Aharon sinned with an action, in that he made the Golden Calf, therefore he brought a sin-offering that is appropriate for a sinful deed. Israel, on the other hand, sinned in thought, for they erred by following after the Golden Calf, brought a calf as a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering atones for [sinful] thought, as it is written (Yechezkel 20:32): “העולה על רוחכם” [the עולה is for what enters your mind]. This is because those who sinned [with the Golden Calf] by deed were [already] judged by Moshe with their appropriate judgment. Aharon, however, brought a burnt-offering, although he sinned with deed, because Aharon also sinned in thought, for in his mind he consented to make the Golden Calf (Gur Aryeh).

קח לך עגל, “take a calf for yourself, etc.” the Torah here tells Aaron to take a calf instead of a bullock (fully matured animal) as seeing that the status of the priesthood had been had been undermined by the golden calf in which he had been involved, it required a calf to restore its status to its former eminence.

קח לך עגל, “take for yourself a calf;” it was customary for the priest to take a bull as a sin offering as is written in Leviticus 4,3: ,'אם הכהן המשיח יחטא וגו, “if the High Priest will sin, etc.; in other words, the calf will atone for the sin of the golden calf. [According to Sifra we must understand that verse as referring specifically to this High Priest. Ed.]

Perhaps we may add that the word לך was intended as a sign for all times that Aaron had not made the golden calf with sinful intent nor had he been involved in its worship. This is why a bull-calf could serve as atonement for Aaron. The same could not be said of the people at large seeing their involvement in the sin of the golden calf had been במזיד, i.e. they had been aware of what they had been doing. Not only could a bull-calf not serve as atonement for their sin, on the contrary, it would remind G'd of their sin and be an accuser. You will find in Vayikra Rabbah 21,10 that the reason G'd did not want Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement dressed in his golden garments was because he had been the one who made the golden calf and we have a principle of אין קטיגור נעשה סניגר, "something which served once as an accuser cannot reverse its role and serve as advocate for the defence." This was a consideration which did not apply to the Israelites who had sinned knowingly in the way they related to the golden calf so that a bull-calf could not serve as a sin-offering for them.

In this connection we must explain why G'd commanded Aaron to take a bull-calf as a sin-offering altogther. Is not a sin-offering intended as atonement and there is therefore no more powerful advocate for the defence than such an offering? Apparently G'd judged matters very fairly. On the one hand, Aaron's involvement in the construction of the golden calf was peripheral; he had neither made its shape, nor believed in it when it emerged from the crucible, and, as he explained to Moses: "the calf emerged by itself" (Exodus 32,24), i.e. as a result of an action by the sorcerers Yeynuss and Yombrus amongst the mixed multitude as reported by Tanchuma 19 on Parshat Ki Tissa. It follows therefore that there were steps in the procedure which resulted in the golden calf materialising which Aaron did take knowingly. He told the people to bring the gold; he accepted it from them; he etched the gold with an etching tool. All of these details he performed in full awareness of what he was doing. Even though the reason he did these things was fear of the Israelites killing him just as they had killed his nephew Chur, and even though all he did was stall for time until Moses would return, he did something improper. This is why G'd told him to bring a sin-offering to atone for a sin which he had been instrumental in making possible. Concerning the gold which was the crucial element in that sin, G'd told Aaron not to appear before Him in the Holy of Holies dressed in gold seeing the accuser could not become an advocate for the defence. The same consideration did not apply to the Israelites as they had been involved in that sin knowingly and a bull-calf could not therefore be used as a sin-offering on their behalf. G'd therefore commanded the Israelites to prepare a he-goat as their sin-offering.

We have to question how it is possible that in view of the principle (Rosh Hashana 26) that the accuser cannot serve as an advocate for the defence that the Talmud Erchin 16 tells us that the purpose of the four golden garments of the High Priest was to atone for four different categories of sin. In view of this the accuser certainly did turn advocate for the defence! We must answer therefore that one cannot compare the process of atonement which occurs as a result of offerings presented on the copper altar outside the Tabernacle with the process of atonement initiated by offerings presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The function of the golden altar inside the Sanctuary is to cleanse the people from sin absolutely so that not a trace of their former sins remain. The well-known symbol for this was the red cord hung at the cliff from where the scapegoat was thrown off, which turned white as a result of the atonement procedures performed by the High Priest inside the Sanctuary being accepted by G'd (compare Yuma 67). The golden garments worn by the High Priest when he performed duties outside the Sanctuary did not interfere with the atonement process because that atonement process did not result in a complete removal of all vestiges of guilt. In order to achieve such total atonement, the High Priest could not wear anything in the Sanctuary which would remind G'd of his ever having been associated with the sin of the golden calf. The very fact that Aaron was commanded to wear the golden garments when performimg his duties on the copper altar was proof that his involvement with the golden calf had only been peripheral. The Israelites, whose sin had been far greater, could not obtain their forgiveness through any process performed only on the copper altar outside the Sanctuary.

And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. This means that Aaron is to speak to them thus, as it was His wish that Aaron should be the one who commands in the name of G-d, and that he should be the one who would bring the offerings, in order to elevate him in the eyes of the people. The correct interpretation is that the expression and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, means you [Aaron] and the elders mentioned [in Verse 1], since it was for that purpose that he called them,⁵As Verse 1 states: And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel. so that they should speak to the children of Israel, as in the verse, And Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them: Draw out [and take you lambs].⁶Exodus 12:21. Or it may be that [Moses] said to each of the elders, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak [the singular word thou thus referring to each one of the elders]. Accordingly, the meaning of the section is as follows: and he [Moses] said to Aaron: Take thee etc., and to [each of] the elders he said, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. For one who speaks to many people usually addresses his command to each person individually, something like that which it is said, And I commanded you at that time, saying etc.: Ye shall pass over armed before your brethren.⁷Deuteronomy 3:18. There are many such cases in the Book of Deuteronomy [where Moses speaks to the whole congregation, when his message is actually addressed to each person individually].
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the verse, And Moses said: This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,¹Verse 6. means that “Moses had already told them, this is the thing.” If so, it is possible that the meaning of the verses be as follows: Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel, and Moses said: This thing which the Eternal has commanded me ye should do, that the Glory of the Eternal may appear unto you;¹Verse 6. and he said unto Aaron: Take thee a bull-calf etc.; and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying: Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering etc.⁸Verse 3. — Ibn Ezra thus transposes the contents of Verse 6, and explains that it was said immediately in Verse 1, as an introduction to the specific commands following. Thus [Moses] spoke briefly at first [as in Verse 6] and then explained himself at the end [in Verses 2-4].
But this is not correct. Rather, after Moses had mentioned to them the offerings [which they were required to bring on that day], and they brought that which Moses commanded,⁹Verse 5. he said to them again, This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,¹Verse 6. meaning that they should bring the offerings in the order that he would command them, and afterwards the Glory of the Eternal would appear to them. Now since he had said, for today the Eternal appeareth unto you,¹⁰Verse 4. he went back and said that He would appear to them through His Glory.
Now these offerings [which were brought on the eighth day after the completion of the seven-day consecration of the priests], were not mentioned in the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me,¹¹Exodus 29:1. for there He only gave the command about the consecration, and their days of consecration were completed with the seven days and their offerings, but now on the eighth day, they themselves brought the offerings [whereas on the seven days of the consecration, the offerings were brought by Moses]. Thus these offerings [brought on the eighth day] were a kind of initiation for the priests, as was the meal-offering of the baken cakes¹²Above, 6:13-15. command for future generations [which were brought] on the day when he is anointed.¹³Ibid., Verse 13. I.e., on the day that the ordinary priests are installed into the priestly service. The High Priest, however, brought this meal-offering every day. Ramban thus suggests that the offerings brought on the eighth day [as explained in this section] were a sort of initiation, comparable to the meal-offering brought in future generations by the ordinary priest once in his lifetime, and by the High Priest every day.
It is possible that it was in order to atone for the incident of the golden calf that He now gave them these added offerings, for at the time when He commanded the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me,¹¹Exodus 29:1. the golden calf had not yet been made, as I have explained,¹⁴See Ramban above, 8:1: “By way of the proper interpretation of Scripture etc.” and therefore He did not mention them [these offerings] there. It is thus not as Rashi wrote there,¹¹Exodus 29:1. that the bullock [offered on each of the seven days of consecration] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf, but these bullocks were to purify the altar,¹⁵See Ramban above, 8:15. and for Aaron and his sons in order to hallow them,¹¹Exodus 29:1. and it was this calf [brought] on the eighth day that was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus Aaron’s offerings [on this eight day] were the same as his offerings on the Day of Atonement,¹⁶Further, 16:3: Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering. [namely, the bull-calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, as mentioned in the verse before us], and the people’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as their sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, namely, one he-goat for a sin-offering.¹⁷Verse 3 here, and further, 16:5. — On the Day of Atonement there were actually two he-goats for a sin-offering, but only one was brought as an offering in the Sanctuary (see further, 16:8-22). So also have the Rabbis said in the Tosephta of the section of consecration, in the Torath Kohanim,¹⁸Torath Kohanim, at the beginning of Shemini 4. that this calf [brought on the eighth day] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus they interpreted: “For what reason did Israel bring more offerings [on this day] than Aaron?¹⁹Israel’s sin-offering on that day was a he-goat, while Aaron’s was a calf. As a burnt-offering Israel brought a calf and a ram, while Aaron’s was only a ram. The Torath Kohanim suggests a reason why the people’s offerings had to be more than those of Aaron, and also why their sin-offering was a he-goat, unlike that of Aaron which was a calf. It was on account of what He said to them: ‘You [the people] have in your hands [sin] at the beginning, and you have in your hands [sin] at the end.’ You have sinned at the beginning, as it is written [when the brothers sold Joseph], and they killed a he-goat,²⁰Genesis 37:31. and you have sinned at the end, as it is said, they have made them a molten calf.²¹Exodus 32:8. Therefore let them bring the he-goat [for a sin-offering] to atone for the incident connected with that of the he-goat, and let them bring a calf [as a burnt-offering] to atone for the incident of the golden calf.”
It would appear that because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, therefore he burnt it [outside the camp]²²Further, Verse 11. Rashi wrote that this was done at the express command of G-d. But Ramban at this point suggests that this procedure was adopted on the basis of a similar law on the Day of Atonement, since the reason for both offerings was identical. as the one of the Day of Atonement is burnt,²³Further, 16:27. even though this sin-offering [of the eighth day] was “an outer sin-offering”²⁴See in Seder Tzav, Note 52. Ramban’s concluding thought here — “for Moses did not explain that he should do so” — is thus to be understood as follows: Since Scripture does not relate that Moses commanded Aaron to burn his sin-offering outside the camp although it was not “an inner sin-offering,” the question arises why did Aaron do so [as stated in Verse 11]? It must be, Ramban suggests, because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering on this eighth day of the initiation was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, which being “an inner sin-offering” is rightfully burnt outside the camp, and hence Aaron on this eighth day did similarly. In the text following, Ramban will suggest that Aaron actually received this command from Moses, and the reason why Scripture did not mention it is explained in the text of Ramban. [while that of the Day of Atonement was “an inner sin-offering”], for Moses did not explain that he should do so. But perhaps Aaron was indeed so commanded, and [it is not mentioned because] Scripture did not want to prolong the matter, it being known that Aaron would only do what Moses said, and that Moses would only say what G-d had commanded.

תדבר לאמור, "you shall speak saying;" We need to explore the reason why Moses commanded Aaron to speak in this instance instead of instructing the Israelites himself as was his custom. Perhaps it was because at the time of the golden calf it had been Aaron who invited the people to bring him their gold, Moses now wanted to give him an opportunity to speak to the people and tell them to bring a male goat to be the sin-offering as atonement. This would be in line with the principle הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, "that the mouth which uttered the prohibition must be the mouth which utters the permission." We have repeatedly quoted our sages as saying that the sin which causes someone's reputation to become sullied can best be repaired when the method of rehabilitation is as closely linked to the circumstances of the sin it rehabilitates as is possible. This is why G'd ordered Aaron to inform the people of this procedure. The words תדבר לאמור mean that inasmuch as on the previous occasion Aaron had uttered words which resulted in the people becoming unrestrained, demeaning themselves, he was now to utter words which would eventually elevate the people and result in atonement for that sin.

ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר, “and to the Children of Israel say as follows:” Moses told Aaron to speak to the Israelites directly and command them in the name of the Lord. This was meant to enhance Aaron’s status among the people seeing that it was he who performed all these rites on behalf of the people. If not for this reason it would have been appropriate for Moses to also include the elders in his address to Aaron, seeing that the elders had been mentioned in verse one as having been called to Moses’ presence also. But Moses was anxious for the people to be addressed by Aaron separately, independently of the elders. When the people had been instructed that each Israelite householder was to secure a lamb for the Passover, (Exodus 12,21) Moses had allowed all the elders to convey that directive. [The latter paragraph is phrased in a manner that could suggest that it is a retreat from the author’s first interpretation. Ed.]

קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת....ועגל, “you (plural) are to take a he-goat as sin offering plus a calf, etc;” this was to let them know that the sin of the golden calf had been atoned for, otherwise they would not have been commanded to use a calf as an offering.

You shall speak, saying. Moshe himself did not speak because the people of Israel become close to their Father in Heaven through the Avodah that is performed truthfully by Aharon and his sons. Therefore, Moshe made Aharon accustomed to be the one who would command them.

קחו שעיר עזים, “take a hegoat as a sin offering to atone for your sins, etc;” they had to pray for atonement for what their forefathers had done to Joseph, when they had sent his tunic soaked in the blood they had taken from the hegoat they slaughtered for that purpose. (Genesis 37, 3132) (Sifra) An alternate explanation: They needed to offer a sin offering for idolatry they had been guilty by burning he goats for idols. (in Egypt) (Tanchuma, section 4 on this portion) We find that also on other occasions such animals were burned in idolatrous rites outside the camp. (Torat Kohanim, chovah chapter 6,5.) This is why this hegoat was burned outside the camp, as we are told in verse 11.

Furthermore, seeing that Moses had observed how Aaron had been elevated by G'd to such a high position, Moses told him to communicate soothing messages to the Jewish people. The word לאמור implies a message couched in a very friendly manner. Aaron told the people that G'd would appear to them (verse 4) to indicate that the whole procedure he was instructing them about was for their good, not for his own. This recalls what we wrote in the name of Torat Kohanim at the beginning of פרשת ויקרא, that the fact G'd did not communicate with Moses in the Tabernacle for 38 years was on account of the sin of the spies; when G'd is reported as communicating with Moses out of the Tabernacle this was a compliment to Israel.

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם FOR TODAY THE LORD WILL APPEAR UNTO YOU to make His Shechinah rest upon your handiwork; on this account these sacrifices come (are to be brought) as an obligation for this day (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 4).

כי היום ה' נראה, and the fire will emerge from heaven to consume the sacrifices on the altar.

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם, it had already become manifest as an appreciation of their handiwork when we read that the Presence (glory) of the Lord filled the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,34). It is therefore no more than appropriate that you express your appreciation of this by this sacrifice.

ושור ואיל לשלמים, “and an ox and a ram as peace-offering.” Our sages in Torat Kohanim Sifra Shemini 4 comment on this: “why did the Israelites have to bring two animals, i.e. a calf as well as a fully grown bull?” The answer is that the Torah had described what came out of the crucible into which Aaron threw the gold both as “calf” and as “bull,” on separate occasions. In Exodus 32,8 it was described as a calf, whereas in Psalms 106,20 it was described as a bull when David said: “they exchanged their glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass.” It was appropriate then that the bull would atone for a deed that was as animal-like as that of a bull, whereas the calf was to expiate for a deed comparable to that of a calf. The proof that G’d was willing to relate to the people again with His goodwill is found in the words לזבוח לפני ה' “to slaughter in the presence of the Lord,” meaning that the (symbol of) sin the people were afraid of had already been slaughtered in the presence of the Lord. We would have expected the Torah to write that these animals be slaughtered as “peace-offerings,” rather than as “in the presence of the Lord.” Moreover, atonement is accomplished through the sprinkling of blood not through slaughtering, a merely preparatory act. According to Torat Kohanim then these words indicated that the very act of slaughtering these animals already resulted in atonement for the people on that occasion.

To rest His Shechinoh... As it is written (v. 24): “A fire came forth ... and consumed...” This is “on the work of your hands,” because this was [a demonstration of] extra affection in that the offerings were accepted. However, [the resting of His Shechinoh was] not [revealed] in that which it is written (v. 23): “and the glory of Adonoy appeared to the entire people.” This is because a number of times the glory of Hashem appeared when they were not commanded to bring offerings. Furthermore, sometimes the glory of Hashem appeared to them even for disaster (Nachalas Yaakov).

ומנחה בלולה בשמן, “and a gift with oil mixed in;” the same applied to frankincense, as we had already learned in Parshat Vayikra, chapter 2, a standard procedure with all such gift offerings. We have also learned this in the Talmud tractate Menachot folio 59. All of these gift offerings consisted of unleavened dough, including this one.

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם, “for this day the Lord has appeared to you.” Actually Moses should have said “nireh” with the vowel segol under the letter aleph instead of the vowel kametz that we find here. [Seeing that the word refers to Hashem, who is certainly masculine]. The variation in the regular use of the vowel may be an allusion to the feminine attribute of Justice which would also manifest itself on that day killing Nadav and Avihu. We find something parallel to this in Psalms 130,3 אם עונות תשמר י-ה אדוני, מי יעמוד?, “if You G’d were to keep account of sins, O G’d, who will survive?” The name used for G’d is the attribute of Justice. In our chapter we encounter a verse (23) describing the manifestation of G’d which is described as כבוד ה', an attribute below that of the tetragram without moderating adjective.

כי היום ה׳ נראה אליכם, “for today the Lord will appear to you.” This is why it is appropriate to appear before him with a variety of offerings, including samples of all the categories of offerings. (B’chor shor).

ויקתו את אשר צוה משה, They took what Moses had commanded, etc. When the Torah writes "which Moses had commanded," the Torah means what Moses had commanded to Aaron, i.e. that Aaron took the animals Moses had commanded him to take and sacrifice on behalf of the people. Had the Torah only written that the people took the animals Aaron had commanded them to take, I would not have known of Aaron's involvement, i.e. that Aaron carried out Moses' instructions. Furthermore, perhaps the Torah wrote "which Moses commanded" as a contrast to the usual "as G'd had commanded," that Moses' command sufficed for the people to carry out these orders although they had not been assured that the command which they were bidden to carry out had emanated from G'd.

And the entire congregation approached. Every place that the Torah mentions ‘approaching’ it implies becoming closer than usual. Toras Kohanim interprets this way as well: “They all approached in rejoicing.” It might be also possible to say that the verse is teaching us what is mentioned in Berachos (6b) that when one is going to a Beis Knesses there is a mitzvah to run.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' חעשו, to place the weight of your body with your hands on the sin offering as well as on the burnt offering intended on behalf of the congregation.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ תעשו, "This is the thing G'd commanded you should do." What precisely does the Torah refer to by the word הדבר? Rashi explains that the reference is to Aaron's offering. [our editions of Rashi on the Torah do not have a commentary by Rashi on this verse. Ed.] This is not the plain meaning of the verse seeing that it addresses the Israelites, i.e. תעשו, (pl) and not Aaron. Perhaps Rashi referred to words in the previous verse: ויקרבו כל העדה ויעמדו לפני השם, that "the whole congregation drew near and stood in the presence of G'd." The Torah was careful there to write in the "presence of G'd," instead of "in front of the Tent of Meeting." The words were altogether superfluous seeing the Torah mentions that all this occured in front of the Tent of Meeting. We may therefore assume that in verse 5 the Torah describes the spiritual preparations made by the people to appear in the presence of the Lord. They achieved a spiritual niveau which made them fit to be in the presence of G'd. When Moses observed this, he added of his own accord in verse 6: "this is the thing which G'd commanded you should do;" Moses told the people that they should always remain on such a spiritual plane that they would be fit to be in G'd's presence. David spoke about this in Psalms 16,8: שויתי ה׳ לנגדי תמיד, "I am ever mindful of the Lord's presence." When doing this he could be assured of what is written in the second half of that verse: כי מימיני בל־אמוט, "so that He (i.e. Torah) is at my right hand and I (David) will never be shaken." The reward for such a spiritual preparation is "the glory of the Lord may appear to you." Another general meaning of the term לפני השם is that there should not be a curtain or barrier between Israel and G'd; Isaiah perceives of the sins of the Jewish people as constituting such a barrier (compare Isaiah 59,2). Accordingly, our verse reports that the Israelites were at peace with their G'd at that time enabling them to appear in the presence of the Lord.

זה הדבר, “this is the thing;” the sacrifices of which we spoke.

'וירא אליכם כבוד ה, in addition to the manifestation of G’d’s presence already experienced by the Presence of G’d filling the Tabernacle. (compare verse 23)

After I had written this I found a comment in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,8 on this verse which goes as follows: "What is the meaning of זה הדבר? It refers to circumcision. The same expression occurs in Joshua 5,4 when it describes the fact that Joshua circumcised all the Jewish males who had been born in the desert immediately after the people crossed the river Jordan." Thus far the Midrash. Actually, what do the two events have in common? After all Moses did not circumcise anyone on the day Aaron assumed the office of High Priest!

I believe we must distinguish between circumcising the foreskin of the body and removing the "foreskin" of the heart, the קליפה, the peel, which makes us unreceptive to G'd's commands. Moses commanded the people to rid themselves of that foreskin in order to qualify for being in the presence of the Lord. If they were to do this the glory of G'd would appear to them.

I have seen yet another Midrash quoted in Torat Kohanim on our verse which goes as follows: The words זה הדבר refer to Moses urging the Jewish people to remove the evil urge from their hearts so that all of them would be of a single purpose and share the same sense of reverence for G'd as a result of which they would merit to serve in the presence of the Lord. Moses promised the people that their service of the Lord would be something unique as it is written "and you shall circumcise the foreskin of your hearts (Deut. 10,16), etc." Moses added: "when you do this, the verse 'the glory of G'd will appear to you' will be fulfilled."

Because today Ad-nai will appear to you. You already know that the Names are sometimes in the masculine and sometimes in the feminine. And so "if You [fem] do this to me" (Numbers 11:15). And they said: feminine and masculine are hints to the characteristic of compassion and the characteristic of judgment. And since the characteristic of judgment receives its emanation [atzilut] from the characteristic of compassion, therefore they called male this compassion, and female this judgment. And she is the shepherdess of the Song of Songs, and the hint - behold, the characteristic of judgment touched Nadav and Avihu, as we explain regarding the decree of El. This is why it is written after "and the Glory/Honor of God appeared to them". There are those who explain this through 'Oh Ad-nai, may You appoint peace for us' (Isaiah 26:12) and the end of the verse proves it: 'You have also requited all our misdeeds' it is a hint to the characteristic of judgment, that separated from sexual transgressions, and so too "if You count transgressions, Yah" (Psalms 130:3), the feminine is hidden, and you know that the Name Yah is a hint to the Shechinah. Our sages said regarding this verse that David said in front of the Holy One of Blessing: Master of the Universe! You give me to an angel that does not show favor! If you keep count of sins, Yah, Ad-nai, who can stand?!' And you know that this characteristic is called angel, and this is what they said regarding the fiery sword that revolves 'some times men, sometimes women' (see Bereshit Rabbah 21:9) therefore our sages z"l called the expression 'shechinah' as feminine. It would be appropriate for the Shechinah to make ten travels 'the Shechinah travel, went up' (Rosh Hashanah 31a) and in the Midrash Mishlei the Shechinah fell in front of the Holy One of Blessing. And the secret of this issue is that even when between the Names there is a distinction between the characteristics of judgment and of compassion, they are all combined and included on each other, as our sages said in the Sefer HaZohar (Zohar 3:30b) There is no crown of all the crowns of the King that does not include both good and evil, and because of that the characteristic of judgment expands onto compassion, or the opposite, because if they were not included on each other it would be impossible for them to switch places, until the first one is cancelled, and then a new creation would be created. This is the knowledge of the masters of Kabbalah and it is right, and I already wrote in a different issue regarding the secret of upsiding connected to Sdom.

קרב אל המזבח [AND MOSES SAID TO AARON] GO TO THE ALTAR, for Aaron was diffident and feared to go there. Moses therefore said to him “Wherefore art thou diffident? For this purpose hast thou been selected!” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 8).

DRAW NEAR UNTO THE ALTAR. 8. AND AARON DREW NEAR UNTO THE ALTAR AND SLEW THE CALF. It seems to me in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture that Moses said to Aaron: “Draw near to the north side of the altar and offer there the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, for they are to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.”²⁵Above, 1:11; 6:18. Moses, however, said it briefly since Aaron already knew [that these offerings were to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar].
Our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim were, however, prompted by [the use of] these expressions to draw a parable [and to say]:²⁶Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 8. The Rabbis were prompted by the use of the phrase “draw near,” which Ramban explained to mean “draw near to the north side of the altar.” “To what can this be compared? To a human king who married a woman, who in her shyness [did not dare to enter] before him. Her sister then approached her, saying, ‘My sister, why did you enter this matter? Was it not in order that you serve the king? Embolden yourself and go in to serve the king!’ Similarly did Moses say to Aaron: ‘My brother! Why were you chosen to be the High Priest? Was it not so that you minister before G-d? Embolden yourself and come and do your priestly activities.’ Some Rabbis say that Aaron saw the [horned] altar in the form of the bull [which — as stated in Psalms 106: 20 — Israel had worshipped], and he was frightened by it. Then Moses came near and said to him, ‘My brother, Aaron, do not be afraid of that which you fear. Embolden yourself and come near it.’ This is why he said, draw near unto the altar, and [Aaron] drew near unto the altar — with zeal.” The reason for this [apparition which Aaron saw in the altar] was that since Aaron was the holy one of the Eternal,²⁷Psalms 106:16. having no sin on his soul except for the incident of the golden calf, therefore that sin was firmly fixed in his mind, something like that which is said, and my sin is ever before me.²⁸Ibid., 51:5. It thus appeared to him as if the form of the calf was there [in the altar] preventing his [attaining] atonement [through the offerings he was to bring]. That is why Moses said to him, “Embolden yourself so that you should not be of such humble spirit,” for G-d has already accepted his works.²⁹See Ecclesiastes 9:7. Other scholars explain that it was Satan who showed him this apparition, just as they have said there in the Torath Kohanim:³⁰Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 3. “My brother Aaron, although G-d has agreed to grant atonement for your sin, you must nonetheless close the mouth of Satan [through your offerings], lest he accuse you when you enter the Sanctuary etc.” And the expression, and make atonement for thyself, and for the people means as follows: “draw near unto the altar to bring all the offerings, and offer first thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself first with thy offerings, and for the people afterwards, through bringing their offering and atoning for them by means thereof.” Thus Moses taught Aaron that the guiltless should come and effect atonement for those who are guilty.³¹Yoma 43 b.

וכפר בעדך ובעד העם. "and make atonement for yourself and for the people." We learn from this that Aaron's own atonement effected the atonement of the people. This is because Aaron's sin was brought about through the Israelites. Had they not demanded from Aaron that he make a deity for them, none of all this would have happened. As long as Aaron had not obtained atonement for his part in that sin, both the sinner and the one who had been the prime cause of that sin still remained guilty. As soon as Aaron obtained atonement, so did the people. We derive all this from the linkage of the two atonements in this verse i.e. "on your behalf and on behalf of the people."

Aharon was ashamed. [Rashi knows this] because it is not written: “Moshe said to Aharon: ‘Perform [the services of] your sin-offering...’” Why did Moshe need to say: “Approach the altar”? Furthermore, it already said (v. 2): “And bring them before Adonoy.” Rather, “[It was because Aharon was ashamed], etc.”

קרב אל המזבח, “approach the altar;” why did Moses have to command Aaron to do this? Satan at the time had appeared to Aaron in the guise of a calf, and he had become afraid that he no longer was qualified to serve as priest, or certainly as High Priest. Moses reassured him that he had nothing to fear.

קרב אל המזבח, “come close to the altar;” seeing that during all of the seven days of the consecration Moses was performing all the duties in the Tabernacle and around it, he had to tell Aaron on the eighth day that the time had come for him and his sons to take over.

את חטאתך THY SIN OFFERING — the young calf (v. 2).

Kid. Re’m writes: Rashi needs to explain that the people’s offering is the kid of goats, young calf, and lamb, to exclude the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that are also called “the people’s offering.” Because of these, he explains “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering...” as well. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? Obviously, it definitely refers to the previously mentioned matter. Furthermore, Rashi explains, “wherever it states [עגל (a calf), it refers to a yearling] ...” raises a difficulty: Why did he not explain this previously in verse (3) where it mentions “calf”? Re’m, too, points this out. There is another difficulty: We should also derive כבש (lamb) from here; why did Rashi not say: “wherever it states עגל או כבש (a calf or a lamb)”? The answer is: I might have an erroneous assumption from the fact the verse uses a different expression, for with regard to Aharon it is written, “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering,” in a specific fashion, whereas regarding the people it is written, “the people’s offering,” in a general fashion, without specifying “their sin-offerings and their burntofferings.” Thus, it certainly [appears as though it] does not refer to the offerings mentioned previously. For this reason Rashi needs to explain that despite this, it does refer to the offerings mentioned previously. Rashi held the view that different expressions in the verse do not pose a difficulty at all. This is because regarding Aharon Scripture could not write the general term “your offerings,” since I would say it refers to the regular sin-offering brought by the kohein godol, which is a bullock, for instance, the bullock of the anointed kohein or the bullock of Yom Kippur. Therefore, it needs to specify “your sin-offering” — a young calf, etc. However, regarding the people there is no room for error, for their sin-offering was a kid goat, and also the regular communal sin-offering is a kid goat.

וכפר בעדך ובעד העם, “and make atonement for yourself as well as for the people.” This verse requires further study, as this offering was only on behalf of Aaron, not the people. We read further on in verse 15 and 16 of this chapter about the offering presented on behalf of the people. Seeing that this was so, why did the Torah in our verse include “the people?” We may answer that the Torah mentioned this in order to explain why Aaron first had to offer his personal sin offering, before being able to act as the agent of the people. As long as he had not obtained atonement for his part in the golden calf, he could not function as the people’s agent in this respect.

וכפר בעדך, “and (commence) by obtaining atonement for yourself,” and subsequently,“for the people,” so that someone free from guilt performs these rites. After all, both Aaron as well as the people had born a share of the guilt associated with the sin of the golden calf.

ואת עלתך AND THY BURNT OFFERING — the ram (v. 2).

Wherever it states עגל (a calf) it refers to a yearling. Rashi needs to explain, so that you will not say since it is written regarding Aharon, “עגל בן בקר” and not just עגל, that it means to say an עגל בן בקר is the same as a bullock (פר), i.e., an עגל בן בקר is also three years old. [You might assume this] because the undesignated term עגל in the Torah refers to a two year old, except where it explicitly says “one year old.” Thus, as a matter of course, here, where it is written עגל בן בקר, it is three years old [(עגל = 2 years) + (בן בקר = 1) = 3]. If so, the aforementioned difficulty remains: Why does Scripture change the expression regarding Aharon, and does not write “your offerings” in an unspecified fashion? Because of this, Rashi explains: “Wherever it states עגל it refers to a yearling...” You can learn, as a matter of course, that where it written בן בקר it is two years old. For this reason, Scripture could not write without being specific regarding Aharon, “your offerings,” for one would err and say that עגל בן בקר is the same as a פר [three years old]. Rather, wherever it says פר it is three years old, עגל בן בקר is two years old, and עגל undesignated is one year old, even if it does not specify clearly that it is one year old. “And from here you learn [this rule].” I.e., since Scripture uses a different term regarding Aharon, etc. as I explained. With this, Re’m’s difficulties are resolved, for he posed the difficulty: Why did Rashi not write this on the verse (v. 3): “and a calf and a lamb, both one year old”? Why did he wait until now? Similarly, why did he not say: “Wherever it states עגל בן בקר it refers to a two year old,” for both are true in Rashi’s view? Also, [this answers] that which Re’m asks: How does he know there is a בניין אב (comparison)? Perhaps, wherever it does not specify, it is two years old, except where Scripture clearly states otherwise.

קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).

וכפר בעדך ובעד העם, ועשה את קרבנך ואת קרבן העם, “and make atonement for yourself and for the people, and prepare your offering and that on behalf of the people.” The sequence of the words may mean that Aaron was first to initiate atonement for his own sin before bringing about atonement for the people, or it might mean that the words “and for the people,” are a reference to his immediate family, i.e. the members of the house of Levi. In that event the words קרבן העם, “the offering for the people,” would refer to the people at large.

ויקרב אהרון אל המזבח, Aaron approached the altar, etc. This verse alludes to a conversation in the celestial spheres which is reported in the Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2,6: "They enquired from 'prophecy': what shall be the punishment of a person who has sinned? Answer: והנפש החוטאת היא תמות. 'The person (soul) who sins, she (the soul) will die (Ezekiel 18,4)'. When they asked 'mercy' the same question the answer given by 'mercy' was: 'he shall bring a sacrifice.'" The major factor determining the value of the animal sacrifice is the thoughts it evokes in the person offering it. If that person will realise that everything which is being done to the sacrificial animal is something that should really be done to him, the offering may effect atonement for its owner. When the Torah writes that Aaron approached the altar this is another way of saying that he readied himself to place his own soul on the altar as a guilt-offering. He was aware that when he performed the act of slaughtering the animal instead, this was an act of mercy by G'd who spared his life and allowed him to present the animal's life as a substitute for his own.

ויקרב אהרן אל המזבח וישחט, “Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered;” Nachmanides writes that in his personal view, the plain meaning of the words קרב אל המזבח is that Aaron is to approach the north side of the altar where he is to perform the procedures involving the sin offering and the burnt offering, seeing these two types of offerings need to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (Zevachim chapter 5) The catching of the blood of these offerings must also be carried out on the north side of the altar in the appropriate vessels. Moses recorded this in abbreviated form as Aaron was already familiar with the procedure. According to a Midrash, seeing that Aaron was a קדוש ה', someone sanctified by Hashem, his life having been stained only by one marginal sin, his involvement in the sin of the golden calf, this sin was something which preyed on his mind constantly, similar to David’s remark וחטאתי נגדי תמיד, “and I am constantly conscious of my sin against You.“ (Psalms 51, 5) He felt that the image of the golden calf constantly intruded upon his imagination and interfered with the proper concentration required when presenting sacrifices on behalf of others. This is why Moses tried to restore his mental equilibrium by telling him not to be depressed, that G’d had already forgiven his involvement in that sin. Some commentators think that it had been Satan that had shown Aaron these images of the golden calf, and that Moses told Aaron that in spite of he fact that as far as G’d was concerned, his sin had been forgiven, he also had to do something to shut up Satan so that the latter would not be able to upset him at the crucial time when he would perform sacrificial duties. This is the approach taken to our verse by Torat Kohanim.

In order to understand the system of crime and punishment and the apparent ease with which atonement can be obtained by the offering of an animal, we must consider various statements by our sages. Tanchuma Shoftim posits that G'd has sworn to hold the universe and the creatures therein responsible for their deeds. If anyone were to declare that G'd is a וותרון, an indulgent and lenient G'd, he will experience that his bowels יוותרו, will become loose. (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5,1). If, as the prophet said in Ezekiel 18,4, the sinner ought to die for his sin, how is it that he only has to offer a sacrifice in order to escape death? I believe we can find a reason for this which is acceptable even in legal terms. At the time a person commits a sin he does not do so as a human being in full command of his faculties. Rather, he has temporarily taken leave of his senses or he would never have committed the sin in the first place. Compare Sotah 3. We are told there that prior to committing a sin man's mind is afflicted by some mental disturbance. Had the person committing the sin not descended to a spiritual level such as that of a beast he would not have committed the sin. On the day such a person becomes a penitent, his רוח, spiritual level, has reasserted itself and he again assumes the spiritual level of a human being. Would it be fair to kill such a human being because of what he did while he was on the spiritual level of a beast? When such a person has to offer a beast in expiation of his sin he will realise the anguish the beast suffers when it has to die and he will appreciate that he himself had been in a situation similar to that of the beast which now has to die. Man's sensitivity to the animal's anguish then is what really saves him from the fate of the animal. This is what the Psalmist has in mind when he speaks of "man and beast You deliver, O Lord" (Psalms 36,7). G'd has delivered the part of man which is similar to the beast because man chose to allow his spiritual part to dominate him. His spiritual part had not deserved to be punished as it had no part in his sin. When looked at from this point of view the requirement to bring this sacrifice is part of justice as opposed to being in lieu of justice. This is why the Psalmist introduced the verse we quoted by saying: משפטיך תהום רבה, "Your justice is like the great deep;"

ואת הדם יצק אל יסוד המזבח, “and he poured the blood upon the foundation of the Altar.” He did this in order to achieve atonement for man whose existence is dependent on blood. This is the meaning of Leviticus 17,14: “for the life-force of all flesh resides within its blood.” It is also written (Leviticus 17,11) “for he atones for the blood which resides in the נפש, ‘life-force.’” This then was the reason that the High Priest was burning up the following three items, “the fat parts, the kidneys, and the tissue attached to the liver.” All of these parts of man had to partake in order for the sin to be carried out (golden calf) and they were instrumental in turning the people away from the path of goodness to the path of evil. This is the deeper meaning of “and the fat-parts, the kidneys and the tissue adjoining the liver of the animal which was the sin-offering he made go up in smoke on the Altar” (verse 10). The part called חלב is the fat which causes man to become gross, arrogant; it is responsible for man’s inherent pride and arrogance. Moses alluded to this when he said (Deuteronomy 32,15) “Yeshurun grew fat and kicked, you became fat and gross and coarse;” we also have a verse in Job 15,27 depicting something similar: ”his face is covered with fat and his loins with blubber.” [The speaker refers to a king rebelling against the Lord. Ed.]
The kidneys are the source of what is called עצה, “counsel,” in the language of our sages (Berachot 61); they base this on Psalms 26,2 “ונסני צרופה כליותי ולבי, “and try me, test my heart and kidneys (mind).” Another verse (Psalms 16,7) carries a similar message, i.e. אף לילות יסרוני כליותי, “my kidneys (conscience) admonish me at night.”
The reason the tissue adjoining the liver had to be burned up is that desire, carnal and other kinds of greed which permeate man, have their origin in that region of the body. It is also the region which is the (physical) cause of anger and rage. All the negative virtues in man are connected to the liver. All of these parts the Priest burned up in the northern part of the Altar as the north is the region from where all evil originates, (compare Jeremiah 1,14). In other words, evil is consigned back to where it originated (symbolically speaking). All these procedures have one purpose, to achieve atonement for man’s sins which originate in the fatness of his heart and the planning of his ego which originates in the liver.

'ואת הבשר ואת העור וגו‏‎‎ AND THE FLESH AND THE HIDE [HE BURNT .. OUTSIDE THE CAMP] — We do not find that any “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which was sprinkled on the outer altar) was burnt except this and that of the installation ceremony — and all these, only at the express command of God (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:14).

And all of them by Divine command. Rashi is answering the question: Usually, the sin-offering is eaten! Alternatively: Rashi is answering the question: Since this entire section is about the avodah of the sin-offering, until (v. 12): “He slaughtered the burnt-offering,” Scripture should have written (v. 10): “Just as Adonoy commanded Moshe” after verse (11): “And the flesh...” so that then it would refer to the entire section. Rashi answers: The burning of this sin-offering was not commanded to Moshe beforehand, only now, “for we do not find, etc. except this one and that of the installation.” For this reason, it was not written at the end [of the section] (Minchas Yehudah). [You might ask:] Above, in [the parallel verse in] Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:14): Rashi explains: “We find no other outside sin-offering burnt besides this one” [and he does not mention the one of installation]! The answer is: He does not mean only this one; rather, this one and all that resemble it. For that one is also termed “one of installation.” It was only that the one [outside sin-offering] of the seven days of installation was for the inauguration of the kehunah, for from that point the designation of kehunah took effect upon them, although they did not yet begin avodah until the eighth day of installation. The one of the eighth day of installation was for the inauguration of the avodah. Similarly, the second young bull of the Levites in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:8), where Rashi explains: “What does it mean by ‘a second’? It teaches that just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so is [this] sin-offering not eaten...” This was also a sin-offering of installation, for the Levites were inaugurated with it for the avodah of the Levites (Re’m).

ואת הבשר ואת העור, “and both the meat and the skin, etc;” Rashi explains here that there is no other occasion when the blood of the sin offering is sprinkled on the altar outside the Tabernacle, except in this instance and on the preceding seven days. (when Moses officiated.) If you were to question that we find that the blood of the second bull offered by the Levites in Numbers 8,815 was also offered before the Levites entered the Tabernacle, and that in the Book of Ezra chapter 8,35, we encounter something similar, a) these were consecration offerings prior to the second Temple beginning to function, and b) Ezekiel had already predicted in Ezekiel 45,1820, that in the new Temple the ritual involving all these sin offerings would take place outside the doorposts of Temple itself. What Rashi meant when he commented on our verse refers to every place when the consecration rites of the Tabernacle in the desert had been discussed, as well as when the consecration rites in the days of Ezra were discussed and when the prophet prophesied about the consecration rites of the third Temple, hopefully in our own days. The answer given to the question raised above in the first chapter of the Talmud, tractate Horiyot, is that what was done in the days of Ezra was an emergency measure, one from which no conclusions may be drawn for normal times.

שרף באש, “he burned in fire;” the reason for this has already been explained in both Exodus 29,14, and in the last Parshah.

וימציאו — This signifies handing over and presenting.

וימציאו, they used this opportunity to become trained in the priestly functions by assisting in their father’s personal sacrifice.

ויקטר על המזבח, he placed them on the altar; when the heavenly fire descended they would be consumed.

על העולה — with the Olah offering

ויחטאהו means: he treated it according to the regulation regarding the חטאת, “sin-offering”.

כראשון, which had been burned although it had been a sin offering whose blood was destined for the altar in the courtyard.

ויקרב את קרבן העם. He presented the people's offering. This refers to the presentation of the "lights" [a term denoting enlightenment in kabbalistic jargon. Ed.] which were planted in the Israelites from the source of the original "light" which had been diffused due to Adam's sin and which had prevented man from achieving the close relationship with G'd he should have maintained. The change which took place in man's soul dictated that he keep a certain distance from G'd as ever since the sin G'd and man are perceived of as two different species, [a halachic term used when two categories of food, a forbidden one and a permissible one become mixed and the question arises if one of them loses its former identity. Ed.] The Torah tells us here that by means of the service performed by Aaron two species which had previously been incompatible had again become compatible. The words "he brought close the offering of the people" mean that he re-united what had become estranged. Actually, by rights, this verse should have been written at the end of the whole procedure in verse 23. Why did the Torah write this verse prior to describing the details of the procedure? The Torah wanted to teach us the lesson that it is not the actual procedure which is crucial in achieving the objective of the sacrifice. It is the intent with which such a procedure is initiated which determines if the execution of the ritual will achieve its objective.

As his calf. Rashi is answering the question: Since it refers to the sin-offering (חטאת), which is a feminine noun, it should use [the feminine adjective form] כראשונה (as the first one)! He answers: The expression ראשון refers to the עגל (calf) which is also masculine. Therefore, Rashi did not use the expression כחטאת שלו (as his sin-offering). Alternatively, we can say that Rashi is answering this question: The expression of ראשון (the first one) implies that it refers to what is written previously. However, previously it mentioned a burnt-offering. How then could it say he should treat the law of a sin-offering like a burnt-offering? Therefore he explains: As his calf, i.e., it does not refer to what was mentioned previously; rather, [it refers to] what was mentioned ‘preceding what was mentioned previously,’ which is a sin-offering, that is: his calf (Re’m).

כראשון AS THE FIRST — as his own calf (as is described in v. 8).

We have a mystical element in this verse also. I have mentioned on a previous occasion that the burnt-offering, עולה, represents the concept of כנסת ישראל, [a concept known in kabbalistic language as the שכינה תחתונה, the lower manifestation of the שכינה in the emanation מלכות. Ed.] the ideological concept of the people of Israel. If the Israelites fail to behave as they should they "lower" the concept of כנסת ישראל. On the other hand, if they draw near to G'd as expressed in the words ויקרב את העולה, they will experience one spiritual ascent after another. Not only will they not be tainted by sins but they will be able to face the most rigorous standards of justice. This is what is implied in the words ויעשיה כמשפט.

ויעשה כמשפט AND HE DID IT ACCORDING TO THE MANNER that is set forth in the section ויקרא (ch. 1) in respect to the burnt offering brought as a free-will gift (Beitzah 20a).

כמשפט, that Aaron’s sons did the sprinkling of the blood, arranged the pieces of flesh and burned them.

In a freewill burnt-offering. Re’m writes: In Menachos (93b) and in Beitzah (20a): “The Tanna taught in front of Rabbi Yitzchok bar Abba: ‘He brought ... and he did it according to the rule’ — as the rule of the freewill burnt-offering. This teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]...” We should not raise the difficulty: In Parshas Vayikro (1:4), Rashi explains on the verse: “the head of the burnt-offering” — [the word “burnt-offering” comes] to include an obligatory burnt-offering for laying [of hands]... If so, why do we need “according to the rule” to teach that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]? The answer is: The obligatory burnt-offering here is Aharon’s burnt offering that he brought on the eighth day, in which Scripture placed an obligation of the day on him. Above in Vayikro, Scripture comes to teach that an individual’s obligatory burnt-offering of generations requires laying [of hands]. Here, however, it speaks of the obligatory burnt-offering of [a specific] time, and one cannot derive the sacrifices of a specific time from sacrifices of generations. You might ask: How does Rashi know this [that it refers to the rule of freewill burnt-offering]? Perhaps it refers to the burnt-offering mentioned here, with regard to sprinkling the blood around the altar, with regard to cutting the limbs and washing the innards and the feet, as [we find concerning] the sin-offering (v. 15) which refers to the sin-offering mentioned here. The answer is: [Rashi knows this] from the fact that Scripture changes its language and writes regarding the sin-offering “as the first” but here [it writes] “according to the rule.” Perforce, we must say that “he did it according to the rule” means: as the customary rule of a burnt-offering. This must refer to the burnt-offering of Parshas Vayikro, where the customary rule of the burnt offering is detailed.

וימלא כפו AND HE FILLED HIS HAND [THEREWITH] — this is what is elsewhere termed קמיצה (i. e. this is elsewhere expressed by the phrase … וקמץ מלא קמצו “he shall take a fistful”) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 10; cf. Menachot 9b).

BESIDES THE BURNT-OFFERING OF THE MORNING. Scripture had to mention this here, in order to teach us that the burnt-offering of the people [which was a special offering for that day] did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did it precede it [as nothing may ever be offered before the Daily burnt-offering of the morning]. But Scripture did not have to mention this about the seven days of consecration [namely that the offerings of those days were to be offered besides the burnt-offering of the morning], because those were offerings of individuals [i.e., Aaron and his sons] to consecrate them as priests, and it is self-understood that such offerings did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did they precede it.
In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have taught:³²Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 12. The meaning of this quote will be explained by Ramban further on in the text. “And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning. What does this come to teach us? Shall we say it teaches us that if he could not obtain the meal-offering [which was offered with every burnt-offering] that he should nevertheless bring the animal [as a burnt-offering]? [That could not be the case], for it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinances.³³Verse 16. If so, why does it say, and he burnt it [i.e., the meal-offering] upon the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach us that there were two meal-offerings there, one for the [Daily] burnt-offering and one [brought] by itself” [for the burnt-offering of the people, which was a special offering of that eighth day].
The meaning of this text [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows: Had Scripture stated, “And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance, besides the burnt-offering of the morning,” the sense thereof would have been to teach that the Daily burnt-offering precedes [the other offerings], as He says in the section of the Additional Offerings, it shall be offered beside the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering thereof;³⁴Numbers 28:15. beside the continual burnt-offering.³⁵Ibid., Verse 31. But since He mentioned the meal-offering — stating, And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom, and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning — it appears that [the phrase, besides the burnt-offering of the morning] is said with reference to the meal-offering. Therefore the Rabbis commented that if it comes to say that he offered this meal-offering alone, but did not offer the drink-offering of the Daily burnt-offering nor that of the people’s burnt-offering [of the eighth day], because he only found [ingredients] for this freewill meal-offering — [that could not be the case]. For [in the preceding verse] it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance,³⁶Verse 16. This shows that the drink-offering was brought together with the people’s burnt-offering of the eighth day, for otherwise it would not have been according to the ordinance. The question then re-appears: why is the phrase besides the burnt-offering of the morning mentioned in connection with the meal-offering? which means that it was offered according to its ordinance, with the drink-offering. [Thus we cannot derive from here a principle that the lack of the drink-offering does not prevent the bringing of the offering itself, if the meal-offering and the wine for the drink-offering are not obtainable.] If so, why does it say, And the meal-offering was presented etc. and he burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach that he offered this meal-offering [of the people’s burnt-offering brought on the eighth day] “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering,” for this meal-offering was not the drink-offering [which is an obligatory part of the Daily burnt-offering], but was the freewill meal-offering of Israel [namely part of the burnt-offering of the people which they brought on that day].³⁷For one might have thought that since the burnt-offering of the people brought especially on this eighth day was also a public one, it should be exempted from the duty of bringing a meal-offering, as the meal-offering of the Daily Whole-offering had already been brought; hence Scripture stated that this meal-offering which came with the people’s burnt-offering, was offered “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering.” It should be pointed out that Ramban refers to this meal-offering as minchath-nedavah (“freewill — meal-offering”) not because of its voluntary nature, namely that it be optional for Israel to bring it or not. The name minchath-nedavah is only to distinguish it from the meal-offering which constantly accompanied the Daily Whole-offering of the people, while this one represented the willing spirit of the people on this day. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 45.

מלבד עולת הבקר, apart from the gift offering which accompanied the morning burnt offering.

ויקרב את המנחה, “he presented the minchah offering.” Although in the directives, he had first been told about offering a bull and a ram, followed by the gift offering mixed with oil, he offered the gift offering first, because Moses had told them all the meat offerings in one directive followed by the instruction about the gift offering. Aaron actually offered the gift offering in the proper order simultaneously with the meat offering.

Fistful. Otherwise, why would this meal-offering be different from the meal-offering of generations in Parshas Vayikro, more so than the burnt-offering? Could it be that the burnt-offering of [the specific] time was the same as the voluntary burnt-offering of generations, and yet the meal-offering of [the specific] time would not be the same as the mealoffering of generations?

ויקרב את המנחה, “he then brought forward the meal offering;” after that he slaughtered the ox and the ram as peace offerings. This sequence also deserves further study as the order is unusual. We would have expected the meal offering to be the least in that sequence. (Compare verse 4)

מלבד עולת הבקר, “except for the burnt offering in the morning.” This teaches that on this occasion two gift offerings were presented, one which was part of the daily burnt offering in the mornings, the other on its own. (Compare verse 4 in our chapter, and chapter 28 in the Book of Numbers).)

מלבד עלת הבקר BESIDE THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE MORNING — all these rites he carried out after the continual burnt offering.

מלבד עולת הבוקר, “in addition to the daily burnt offering which was presented each morning.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to record this additional detail (about the daily burnt offering in the morning) in order to teach us that an offering brought on behalf of the whole people, such as here- cannot replace the daily mandatory communal offering known as tamid. (Called here עולת הבוקר). Not only this, but the daily tamid is offered before any other offering, communal or private. Actually, if not for teaching us this aspect of the daily communal tamid, there was no need to make special mention of this during the days of the inaugural offerings, seeing those were not communal offerings but private offerings, which had been designed to serve as the introduction of the priests to their position as the people’s intermediary between themselves and G’d. Therefore, there had not been the slightest reason to assume that their offerings could replace the daily tamid. This may be the reason why in the Torat Kohanim the reference is understood as pertaining only to the libation offering, מנחת נסכים, which accompanied the daily tamid, and which was considered a private offering, the wording here teaches that both these libation offerings were presented.

After the [daily] burnt-offering. Meaning: In addition to the burnt-offering of the morning, for if it meant: all these he did without the burnt-offering of the morning, Scripture should write this at the end of the section after he brought the peace-offerings, because he offered the peace-offerings without the burnt-offering of the morning as well. Or, Scripture should write this at the beginning of the offering, and then it would reflect on the entire section. Why was it written specifically here? It is all right if we explain that all these he did after the morning burntoffering [as Rashi explains], then it is understandable why it is written specifically here: It comes to teach that these offerings were brought after the morning burnt-offering. But, if it was written at the end, it would imply that the peace-offerings as well were specifically after the morning burntoffering. This, however, is not so, because we can say there was no order for the peace-offerings in terms of which of them came first. Re’m explains: If so, it should say, “aside from the burnt-offering of the month,” as it says regarding the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Holidays.

וימציאו, they also trained in performing the rites of the peace offerings offered on behalf of the congregation.

והמכסה AND THAT WHICH COVERETH — This is elsewhere (e.g., Leviticus 3:3) termed “the fat which covereth the inward parts”.

V’HAMECHASEH’ AND THAT WHICH COVERETH THE INWARDS. “That is, the fat which covers the inwards.” Thus the language of Rashi. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for why should He mention [only] this particular fat and not the other fats [which were burnt on the altar]?³⁸See above, 3:3-4. Rather, the word hamechaseh in my opinion is a term for all the fats, since all fats which are burnt on the altar are “covering” [fats]. One is the fat which covereth the inwards,³⁹Ibid., 3:3, etc. and the second is all the fat that is upon the inwards,³⁹Ibid., 3:3, etc. and that too “covers” [the inwards]; the fat which is upon the kidneys covers them, as does also the fat which is upon the loins.⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 4. This is similar to that which the Rabbis have said:⁴¹Chullin 93 a. “Fat which the meat covers is permissible to be eaten, for the Merciful One said, the fat which is upon the loins [is called ‘fat’], and not that which is within the loins.” This verse is thus a continuation of the above: and Aaron’s sons delivered unto him the blood⁴²Verse 18. of the ox and the ram mentioned [in the first part of that verse], and the fat of the ox,⁴³In Verse 19 before us. but of the ram they presented to him the fat tail and “the fat” [as the word mechaseh indicates], and of the two [the ox and the ram, they presented to him] the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver. Scripture states, And they put the fat upon the breasts,⁴⁴Verse 20. for they placed the fat tail, the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver at the bottom, and the [other] fats on the top of them, and everything upon the breasts. Thus the fats alone were visible above, this being the respectful way to burn them [on the altar].

והמכסה, “and the covering fats;” Rashi claims that this abbreviated reference refers to the fat membranes covering various innards.” Nachmanides queries this interpretation, asking why this fat part should be singled out for special mention? He therefore explains that the word המכסה sums up all the fat parts which cover the innards, be it kidneys, parts of the liver, etc, Any fat part offered on the altar and burned up there is included in the term המכסה. Whereas a distinction is made between חלב על and חלב המכסה, when it comes to its function on the altar, there is no such distinction. Basically, our verse refers to what has been written before beginning with the words וימציאו in the middle of verse 18. From the word ומן האיל (המציאו) in verse 19 what is written belongs to what follows in the text. In other words, the parts mentioned after ומן האיל were all burned up on the altar.

Covering the innards. Rashi rectifies [the verse’s language] in that “the covering,” although it is unspecified, is none other than the fat covering the innards. This is because we do not find anything else called “the covering” besides for the fat covering the innards.

וישימו את החלבים על החזות AND THEY PUT THE FAT UPON THE BREAST — After the waving the priest who waved them gave them to another priest to burn them; consequently what was previously above was now beneath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 7:30; Menachot 62a).

AND HE BURNT THE FAT UPON THE ALTAR — together with the others mentioned [namely, the fat tail, and that which covereth the inwards, and the lobe of the liver, and the breasts]. But because the burning of the fats is greater, He mentions [only] them. Similarly, it consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fats.⁴⁵Verse 24. Here too, Scripture singles out “the fats,” although the fire also consumed the tail, etc., because the burning of the fats was greater.

וישימו את החלבים על החזות, “they positioned the fat parts on top of the breasts;” The fat tail, the kidneys and the attachment to the liver would be placed below; above that would be placed the various parts of fatty substance; both of these would be placed above the breasts of the animals From the outside only the fatty membranes would be visible; this was out of consideration for the “dignity” of the remnants of the animals.

To another kohein to burn them. Rashi is answering the question: In another place it is written (10:15): “The thigh that is the separated portion and the breast that is the wave-offering, on top of the fats of the fire offering,” implying that the thigh is on top and the fat below! In Parshas Tzav (7:30), Rashi explains this well.

ויברכם AND HE BLESSED THEM with the priestly benediction (Numbers 6:24—26): “May the Lord bless thee … May the Lord cause his face to shine … May the Lord lift up …” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 17; Sotah 38a)

AND AARON LIFTED UP HIS HANDS TOWARD THE PEOPLE, AND BLESSED THEM — “with the priestly benediction: The Eternal bless thee …. The Eternal make His face shine upon thee … The Eternal lift up His countenance upon thee …”⁴⁶Numbers 6:24-26. Thus the language of Rashi. But if so, the section of Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying: Thus ye shall bless the children of Israel, in the Book of Numbers,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 23. takes chronological precedence over this section! Perhaps it is [indeed] so since it is placed near to that which it says there, And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the Tabernacle⁴⁸Ibid., 7:1. [which was on the first of Nisan — “the eighth day” herein discussed].
It is possible to say that Aaron spread forth his hands towards heaven and blessed the people, just as Solomon did, as it is said, And Solomon stood before the altar of the Eternal in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands, toward heaven,⁴⁹I Kings 8:22. and there it is said, And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying, etc.⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 55. Therefore Scripture does not mention that Moses commanded him to do so [i.e., to say the priestly blessing, since it had in fact not yet been given].
In the Beraitha⁵¹See Seder Vayikra Note 65. of the section of consecration in the Torath Kohanim I have seen it said:⁵²Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 30. “And he blessed them. This is an unspecified blessing [the nature of which] you do not know. Scripture [therefore] went back and explained it further on: The Eternal bless thee, and keep thee. The Eternal make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. The Eternal lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”⁴⁶Numbers 6:24-26. Nonetheless, I could still say that the Rabbis of this Beraitha were saying as follows: “This blessing with which Aaron blessed the people of his own accord, is unspecified, and Scripture did not explain to us what it was. But the blessing that the priests have been commanded to say in all future generations, has been expressly set forth, it applying to all priests alike forever. Or it may be that [the Rabbis of this Beraitha] are of the opinion that here He commanded him [to say] the priestly blessing for that day, and later on [as stated in the Book of Numbers] this blessing was given to Aaron and his sons for the succeeding generations.

וישא אהרון אח ידיו, Aaron raised his hands, etc. Torat Kohanim claims that this verse is truncated and the words: "he descended from offering the sin-offering, etc." should have been written before the words "he raised his hands and blessed them." We therefore have to explore why the Torah chose this unusual sequence. Perhaps when Aaron realised that the Presence of G'd had not manifested itself (by consuming the fat and meat on the altar by means of heavenly fire) he may have felt that both he and the people had not yet been completely exonerated from their respective share in the sin of the golden calf. He therefore considered himself as having brought a curse on the people. By raising his hands already at this time and blessing the people, Aaron hoped to counteract that curse. Only after he had blessed the people did he feel that he had really completed the ritual of the sin-offering. He was then able to descend from the altar secure in the knowledge that he had done all he could. Perhaps the Torah wanted the blessing of the Israelites to be included in the procedure of offering the sin-offering because it also exonerated Aaron from his share in the guilt. The word וירד may also refer to a spiritual descent; when Aaron saw that the שכינה had not yet descended, he felt reduced in stature, i.e. וירד. Torat Kohanim on our verse reports Aaron as having cried out to Moses that the latter had commanded him to present these offerings on the altar only to now shame him when G'd had not indicated that He had accepted these offerings. Moses then entered the Tabernacle together with Aaron and after they asked G'd to show mercy the fire from heaven materialised.

וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, “Aaron raised his hands toward the people and blessed them.” Rashi says that he blessed them with the standard blessing of the priests, the verses 24-26 in Numbers chapter 6. Nachmanides comments that if this were so then the paragraph in Numbers must have been inserted in the Torah out of turn. It is quite possible that this is indeed so, seeing that the paragraph following the blessing there dealt with events which occurred on the day the erecting of the Tabernacle was completed, i.e. the 1st day of Nissan of the second year, the day when the inaugural offerings were completed also. It is quite possible that Aaron raised his hands heavenwards, as did King Solomon when he blessed the people when the Temple was inaugurated (Kings I 8,22) If Aaron used the standard blessing used by the priests, this would account for the fact that we did not hear Moses instruct him to bless the people.

וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, “Aaron raised his hands in the direction of the people and he blessed them.” The meaning of the words אל העם, normally translated as “in the direction of the people,” should here be translated as: “for the sake of the people, i.e. to meet their needs.” The commentators who disagree with us and dress themselves up in fancy garments to lend weight to their words, are wrong when they said that the meaning of these words is that Aaron lifted his hand in order to indicate to the people that they should raise their right hand as affirmation. These commentators [Christian theologians, compare St. James version of the Bible, Ed.] quote a Midrash (see gloss of Maimoniot on Maimonides Hilchot Tefillah 14,3) that the word ידו with the vowels of the plural, is spelled without the letter י indicating that it is really a singular, i.e. “his hand.” Our answer to them is simply that traditionally we read the word as if it had been spelled with the letter י, i.e. that Aaron raised both his hands. Their argument that Aaron only raised his right hand is null and void. The reason that we encounter this unusual spelling is to indicate that the right hand is more important than the left hand concerning mystical matters which are revealed only to select individuals. This is why the Kabbalists have said that the word is spelled ידו in the singular to allude to the select individuals who are recipients of deeper insights from the “right” side of G’d. In this way justice is done both to the spelling and the traditional reading. When you compare the prayer Moses uttered when he prayed for the victory of the Israelites against the attack by Amalek in Exodus 17,11 you will also find this dual spelling of the word ידו, i.e. והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל. “Whenever Moses raised his hand (s) Israel would prevail.” In the following two verses the word is spelled as ידיו in the normal way. Had Moses used only one hand at a time, it is hard to understand why he needed two men to support his hands as is evident from verses 12 and 13 in that chapter.
If the people who understood our verse as Aaron raising his hands towards the people (instead of towards G’d) would be correct, the Torah should have written instead of וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם, the formula וישלח אהרן את ידיו אל העם. It is the custom for a father who prepares to bless his son to put his hand on his head, just as Yaakov did when he prepared to bless the two sons of Joseph. In that instance the Torah wrote וישלח ישראל את ימינו, “Israel extended his right hand.” In our verse the Torah employs the verb וישא to show that Aaron’s hands were stretched upwards (towards heaven). We have a parallel example in Kings I 8, 54-55 ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל אל ה' את כל התפלה והתחנה הזאת וכפיו פרושות השמים ויעמוד ויברך את כל קהל ישראל, “it was when Solomon had completed this entire prayer and entreaty with his palms outstretched heavenwards, he stood and blessed the entire congregation of Israel.” It is clear that the meaning of the verse is that Solomon’s hands were in an upright position aimed towards heaven.

May [He] bless you. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to mention, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”? Since he mentioned Birkas Kohanim, surely it was, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”! The answer is: So that you will not raise the difficulty: How does Rashi know at all that he blessed them with Birkas Kohanim? Perhaps it was another blessing, such as the blessing of Shlomo, as it says (Melachim I, 8:22): “And he spread forth his hand...” Therefore, Rashi mentioned, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up,” i.e., why did Aharon bless them? Because they offered a sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, which are alluded to in these blessings. See Baal HaTurim [who explains the hints].

וישא אהרן את ידיו, “Aaron raised his hands, etc.;” this verse has been truncated somewhat; it should have commenced with: “from having completed the rites of the sin offering and the burnt offering and he then raised his hand in order to bless the people.”

‎‏וירד AND HE CAME DOWN from off the altar.

וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים, “he descended from having performed the sin-offering, the burnt offering, and the peace-offering.” The Torah does not mention Aaron having also performed the minchah, gift offering. Some commentators claim that seeing that the gift offering is only an offering preparatory to ensuring that the major part of offering is acceptable to Hashem, there was no need to mention this. We must assume that the Torah only bothered to mention the animal sacrifices.

From the altar. And not that Aharon descended from the place of lifting his hands. According to this, the verse is reversed. Possibly, “he descended” can be explained: He had already descended. Examine what I wrote in Parshas Shemos on the verse (4:20): “And he returned to the land of Egypt and Moshe took the rod of Hashem in his hand.” Similarly, the Sages said in Toras Kohanim: “This verse’s text is distorted, and it should say: He descended after offering the sin-offering, the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, and Aharon raised his hands toward the people and he blessed them... [after he descended he raised his hands and blessed them].” The Sages in Megillah (18a) said the same (Nachalas Yaakov).

And he blessed them. The three blessings of the Kohanim (Bamidbar 6, 24-26) correspond to three types of offerings: The first blessing corresponds to sin offerings, “and may He guard you” — from sin, as it says (Shmuel I 2:9), “The feet of His pious ones He will guard”; “May he cause His face to shine” corresponds to the burnt offering [olah], as it says (Shemos 34:24), “When you go up [ba’aloscha] to see”; “peace” corresponds to the peace offerings.

וירד מעשות החטאת, “he descended from the altar from performing the rites of the sin offering,” i.e. burning up the parts not to be eaten.

ויבא משה ואהרן AND MOSES AND AARON CAME, etc. — Wherefore did they now enter the Tabernacle? I have found the following in the “Mechilta d’Miluim,” in the Boraitha that is appended to our Torath Cohanim (Sifra): Wherefore did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony. Or it may be that he entered for some other reason?! See, I draw a conclusion: the descent from the altar and the entry into the tent of meeting both required to be accompanied by a benediction, as stated in vv. 22 and 23 (and consequently both were, in a measure, of similar character). Now what was the descent from the altar? It was of the nature (it look place in connection with) a sacrificial act! So, also, the entry into the tent took place in connection with a sacrificial act! Thus you may learn: Why did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony which was the only rite performed on that day within the tent! (Cf. Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 4). Another explanation is: When Aaron perceived that all the sacrifices had been offered and all the rites performed, and yet the Shechinah had not descended for Israel, since the heavenly fire had not fallen to consume the sacrifice, he was uneasy in mind and said: I feel certain that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with me and that it is on my account that the Shechinah has not descended for Israel. He therefore said to Moses: “My brother Moses! Do you act thus with me: you know that I have entered into this matter at your bidding and yet I have been put to shame! Moses at once entered the tent with him and they offered prayer and the Shechinah descended for Israel (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 18).

ויצאו ויברכו את העם, They emerged from the Tabernacle and blessed the people. Perhaps they had been commanded to do so by a prophetic vision. It is also possible that the Torah substitutes the word "blessing" here for the word "prayer." The prayer may have been that G'd's Presence should continue to manifest itself in the camp. Even though the people had already been blessed by Aaron, it was good to be blessed by both brothers each of whom represented a different nuance of spirituality, one that is unique to the Levite and the other the spirituality unique to the priesthood. In kabbalistic terms the two brothers Aaron and Moses represented the emanations חסד וגבורה respectively.

ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד, to pray for the heavenly fire to descend

ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came (to the tent of Meeting);” According to Rashi, the reason Moses entered was to teach Aaron the details of the presentation of the incense. All the commentators wonder why Moses delayed this part of Aaron’s instructions until this late stage, seeing that the offering of the incense is slated to take place between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning up of the portions of the daily tamid sacrifice that needs to be burned up on the altar? The answer given is that up until his point the heavenly fire that was to consume this offering had not yet materialized. Moses wanted to await that happening.

ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד ויצאו ויברכו את העם, “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting, and when they came out they blessed the people.” They both had to enter to enable Moses to teach Aaron the details of the incense offering. Aaron had not been allowed to enter beyond the entrance of the Tabernacle during the seven days of inauguration as we have read in 8,38 that Aaron and his sons were to remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting during this entire period. Now, on the eighth day, permission had been given for him to enter. Moses accompanied him in order to teach him the procedure. Moses had already acquired expertise in this procedure having performed it for the last seven days. You know that Moses had performed all the various procedures connected with the service in the Tabernacle from 8,19-21 “Moses sprinkled the blood, Moses slaughtered. Moses cut up the animal into pieces, he burned up the ram, etc. etc.” Up until the eighth day Moses had performed all these procedures. This is why Psalms 99,6 describes both Moses and Aaron as “His Priests.”
When the Torah describes both Moses and Aaron as emerging from the Tabernacle and blessing the people, this means that they did so immediately after having offered up the incense. The reason is that at that moment prayer is accepted by G’d with a minimum of delay. It became the custom for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement to offer the incense and even to leave his pan inside the Temple in order to immediately leave the Sanctuary and offer his (famous) prayer for the economic welfare of the Jewish people in the coming year; at the same time he requested from G’d that all the various needs of the Jewish people be met (Yuma 53). This is also what prompted David to say in Psalms 141,2: ”Take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.” David singled out the incense offering by name from amongst all the others, because it is the most beloved. Hence prayer offered at the time of day when the incense would be offered is most effective.

To teach him. You might ask: How could they postpone bringing the incense until after all these offerings? [The Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Yoma 31b): The incense of the morning was brought between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs. Furthermore, what did Moshe have to teach Aharon? Could it be that during the entire seven days of installation Moshe did not burn the incense in order to teach him [just as he brought the offerings to teach him]? The answer is: Scripture did not allow them to enter inside the entrance [of the Tent of Meeting] at all during the entire seven days of installation, as it is written (8:35): “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night.” Since the incense is a service performed inside [the Tent of Meeting], Moshe could not teach Aharon during the seven days of installation, and he needed to teach him on the eighth day of the installation, after the Mishkon has already been erected and all the inner and outer services were permitted. Now, since the golden altar can be inaugurated only with the afternoon incense, as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Menachos 49a), if so, the only purpose of the incense they burnt in the morning, before inaugurating the golden altar, was to teach Aharon so that he would know how to burn it in the afternoon. Because of this he was not concerned to burn it at the proper time, and he burnt it after bringing all the offerings (Re’m).

ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד, “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting.” They did so in order to see the glory when heavenly fire would descend as proof that their sacrificial service had been accepted in heaven.

ויצאו ויברכו את העם AND THEY CAME OUT AND BLESSED THE PEOPLE — They said the words that conclude “The Prayer of Moses” (Psalms 90:17): “May the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us” — i. e. May it be God’s will that the Shechinah may rest upon the work of your hands (see Rashi on Exodus 39:43). They invoked just this blessing and not another formula because during the whole seven days of the installation when Moses was setting up the Tabernacle and officiating therein and dismantling it daily the Shechinah had not rested upon it and the Israelites felt ashamed, saying to Moses: “O, our Teacher Moses! All the trouble which we have taken was only that the Shechinah may dwell amongst us, so that we may know that the sin of the golden calf has been atoned for on our behalf!” He therefore had said to them (v. 6): “This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do so that the glory of the Lord may appear unto you” (i. e. only after these offerings will have been brought by Aaron (cf. v. 7) will God’s glory appear unto you). My brother Aaron is more worthy and excellent than I am, so that through his sacrifices and ministration the Shechinah will rest upon you, and ye will thereby know that the Omnipresent God has chosen him to bring His Shechinah upon you.

וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם. Wherein did this “glory of the Lord” manifest itself?

May it be [His] Will that [the Shechinoh] should rest. We should not say this was Birkas Kohanim, because Aharon had already blessed them. Furthermore, Moshe was a Levi; so how could he bless with the Birkas Kohanim?

'וירא כבוד ה, “the glory of the Lord appeared.” How so?

וירנו Understand this as the Targum does: and they praised God.

'ותצא אש מלפני ה, this fire emanated from the Holy of Holies, traveled via the golden altar in order to burn up the incense which was always offered before the daily communal burnt offering, as described in Yuma 33. This is also where the fire encountered the sons of Aaron beside the altar Subsequently, this fire moved to the altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle and consumed the sacrificial meat consisting of both burnt offerings and peace-offerings.

ותצא אש מלפני ה' וגו', “fire came forth from Hashem, and consumed the burnt offering on the altar.” According to the sages who accuse the sons of Aaron Nadav and Avihu of having entered the holy precincts while in a state of inebriation, although no decree had yet been issued to forbid this, and we have a rule that no death penalty is applied unless the guilty party had first been warned that what he was about to do would carry such a penalty, one must assume that they were punished for something for which punishment had been withheld thus far, and now that the opportunity of further indictment presented itself, the penalty for prior misconduct was enacted. This answer would also explain why the method of their death was by burning, seeing that the death penalty for entering the holy precincts in a state of intoxication would be punishable by a different death penalty. Nachmanides argues that they were not punished because they were intoxicated, but hat it was their intoxication which led them to commit an error that carried the death penalty.

'ותצא אש וגו, “Heavenly fire descended,” etc.; the heavenly fire that was visible in the time of Moses did not depart from the copper altar until the days of the Temple of Solomon. It disappeared only in the days of King Menashe, who had incurred G-d’s wrath more than any King of the kingdom of Yehudah before him.